Originally Posted by daftari
No larry here, you can check my IP address against that of larry if you dont believe these are my first posts here. I would like you to notice that all i am saying is supporting a member here with more than 1000 posts.
Wikipedia has an article of "stealing" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
This other wikipedia entry relates "stealing" with "theft". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal_%28disambiguation%29
As the article say "stealing" is a criminal act. Patent infringement and copyright violations are not criminal acts and hence are not stealing.
You may say you do not care about the distinction and you view these violations are "stealing" but you should know that once you do that. Then you will logically start to argue for or against these violations/infringements as if the issue is a criminal matter and no good can come from that.
It is a very dangerous thing to knowingly use words in wrong context because you do not care about the context. Once you pass the stage where you made the decision of not caring,all your arguments will logically follow a path that isnt valid from that point forward.
OK, i have said my piece and i am going back to lurking.
The member you are supporting has 1,864 posts in a little over a month. You can click on his name and see a log of all his posts, You will find that most are argumentative, contrarian and frequently change arguments/positions -- always moving the goalposts and muddying the water. These actions typify troll behavior -- in fact, I mentioned that @gloudgaser reminds me of a troll from a few months ago.
BTW. I am a frequent poster and have double the amount of @gloudgazers posts in 4 years (compared to 1 month plus).
Wikipedia is a valuable source of information -- but I certainly would not use it (or any Internet source) for moral or legal advice.
I do care about distinction -- but decry weasel-words -- and parsing everything for esoteric meaning or gotchas.. Like most people, I do know when something is dishonest, unethical or immoral -- whatever the dictionary or wiki chooses to call it.
If I had a significant holding of GOOG stock (have been, not currently) and Google is found to have willfully infringed patents to the detriment of my investment, I would certainly be interested in any legal redress possible. Their actions would have stolen from me as a shareholder, IMO.
Finally, I did not really mean to insult you -- but your first post was contrary to the general attitude of this thread -- by some very well reasoned and respected contributors -- over a much longer time than @cloudgazer.
Perhaps, we would all have been better served if you had lurked a little longer or entered the discussion with less of an "in your face" attitude.
But, welcome aboard! I look forward to having reasoned discussions with one who can give as well as he takes.